Poor 'could turn to loan sharks'

TENS of thousands of city residents who will be forced to pay council tax for the first time face one of the biggest cuts to support in the country.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council is to hit 20,000 households who currently pay nothing with a bill for 30 per cent of their council tax from April, which is already a concession on an earlier proposal of 35 per cent.

The figure is understood to be equal to the highest proposed charges anywhere in the country and compares to a 20 per cent levy proposed in Cheshire East, Newcastle and the Moorlands.

Birmingham City Council also plans to cap the amount of the tax bill it covers at 80 per cent.

Critics have questioned why Stoke-on-Trent, one of the country's most deprived areas, is imposing above-average reductions in support, with Simon Harris, of the city's Citizens Advice Bureau, raising fears the measures could even force people to turn to loan sharks, 'to keep bailiffs away'.

Mr Harris said virtually all of the residents it advises on debt already have high interest payday loans.

He said: "The only consolation is that council tax in Stoke-on-Trent is low because of property values.

"But it's all relative because those values reflect the poverty and lack of affluence in the area.

"I think it will cause huge problems. One concern is that we will see arrears rising dramatically.

"Councils will be more reliant on this income and may be tougher on people who don't pay. That will drive them into the less scrupulous ends of the credit market and it's certainly possible they'll resort to loan sharks to keep the bailiffs away."

Lord Patrick Jenkin, the Conservative peer who masterminded the poll tax, has warned cuts to council tax benefit faces becoming a 'poll tax mark two' as thousands refuse to pay.

City councillor Paul Shotton, cabinet member for finance, said: "The Government is reducing the amount it gives the council to fund the benefit by more than £6.4 million, which means we have been left with no choice but to introduce a charge to some people on low incomes." The Government is scrapping council tax benefit and instead paying councils to offer discounts to claimants – but it is paying 10 per cent less than the current cost of providing the benefits and insisting all pensioners are excluded from changes.

Senior figures in the Local Government Association, which represents 373 councils in England and Wales, claim the Government may impose a further 8.5 per cent cut in the amount it gives councils to cover tax benefits from 2014.

A further cut, which the Government has so far denied, would force councils to slash discounts even further.

Councillor Dave Conway, leader of the opposition City Independents, said: "People won't pay because they won't be able to pay. The council didn't tell people it was one of the highest caps in the country when it was consulting people on this."

Lagu2. If a pensioner is on above average income then they will still be paying income tax and full council tax. Giving them a winter fuel allowance is a pittance towards what they continue to contribute to society. They will not be able to claim much else as most benefits are means tested. Unlike the immigrants who flock from all over the world and turn up on our doorstep who are then given everything without making any contribution whatsoever; society's scroungers - who have no intention of ever working and will live and squeeze everything out of the benefits system for much if not all of their lives.
No pensioner in need will live on just the state pension. They are able to claim lots of benefits and there are s upport agencies to provide advice on how to claim.

I'm not a oap myself as well, but why do we pay benifits to oap's who have more than average income , compaired to a pensioner who only gets the sate pension or send it overseas when they have moved home. It's Wrong.the only reason why this is . it's because cameron wants to protect the grey vote. and why give them to charity, if they did not have them in the first place then they could goto someone who really needs the help, and not just oap's

"lagu2. Though I agree with a lot of what you write regarding the way peoplsome copmanies abvoid paying tax, or those entering the country to get a free ride as there needs to be a qualifying period of people working before those entering the country can claim benefits, I totally disagree with stopping univeral benefits for those so called 'rich' OAPs. People in their 70s / 80s may have started work when they were 14! Those in their 60s may have started work when they were 15. Far different than today when many youngsters enter into the labour market at 21 or later if they go to University. In the education days of the current OAPs, those going to university were very few. Today's OAPs may have paid into the system for over 50 years. Some of these people give away their universal benefits to charity if they do not need them. Other benefits like for example free bus passes they do not even claim (Can you imagine Alan Sugar queuing up for a bus?). Introducing a system to identify richer OAPs would cost more to administer than money clawed back. Leave the OAPs alone - today's generations owe too much to these people for the way weare able live and the opportunities that are available today. And 'no' I am not an OAP myself

lgue2. Though I agree with a lot of what you write regarding the way peoplsome copmanies abvoid paying tax, or those entering the country to get a free ride as there needs to be a qualifying period of people working before those entering the country can claim benefits, I totally disagree with stopping univeral benefits for those so called 'rich' OAPs. People in their 70s / 80s may have started work when they were 14! Those in their 60s may have started work when they were 15. Far different than today when many youngsters enter into the labour market at 21 or later if they go to University. In the education days of the current OAPs, those going to university were very few. Today's OAPs may have paid into the system for over 50 years. Some of these people give away their universal benefits to charity if they do not need them. Other benefits like for example free bus passes they do not even claim (Can you imagine Alan Sugar queuing up for a bus?). Introducing a system to identify richer OAPs would cost more to administer than money clawed back. Leave the OAPs alone - today's generations owe too much to these people for the way weare able live and the opportunities that are available today. And 'no' I am not an OAP myself.

What people don't know is how the new changes will affect them , even thoes in work and might one loose there job.It's is not about getting a job paz68, what about the disabled and there carers do you want to seen them struggle even more. yes all the people are saying cut benifits and to some point i do agree with them, but stop giving them to well of people oap's (fuel allowance etc, means test child benifit and anyone with a combined income of 25,000 say does not get it ) get the compaines to pay the correct amount of tax in this country like everyone else has to,stop giving overseas aid ( unless its a real disaster ), stop paying 50 million a week to the eu and for people entering the country they have to support thenselves for 2 years from a eu contry. then we will be able to afford new hospitals,roads,schools and benifits

The fact is that Labour left this country in such a mess - even writing that there was no money left - that whichever government got into power they would have to make unpopular hard decisions. Unfortunately the Conservatives and Liberals are now jointly in power and having to do this. The better result would have been for Labour to get back in and then have to take the decisions that their previous financial mismanagement caused. The benefits system consumes about a 3rd of the country's finances. This needs to be reined in and for the economy to improve so that people get off benefits and into work. If the local council would stop playing politics and spend the money they raise and are allocated, properly then maybe the local economy would improve. Unfortunately this Labour dominated council is so inept that they cannot do this so all they can do is to blame central government in the hope that it will provide the smoke screen to cover up their own failings.

Well said lagu2.
Many people out there still don't know what's coming with the severe changes to welfare this government is making and will have a shock come April. And they're being very crafty about it and hoping they can shift the blame to councils who will have problems collecting the money from people who genuinely can't pay.
On the upside, I hope this finally wakes people up to what this government is doing to ordinary people whilst allowing the rich get even richer.

Somebody needs to pay for the new Civic Centre which will go ahead no matter how many Services or jobs are cut.
It is not the Central Government that needs to go - they inherited the horrific financial mess from 14 years of Labour mis-rule which borrowed at high interest rates to then give it away to some of the countries from whom they have borrowed, wild spending on projects that then get canned. It is this abominable Labour run Council that needs to go as it has its priorities completely wrong. They put up a smoke screen of blaming central government funding cuts to the gullible labour voters to believe when in fact it is they who waste the rates on white elephant projects.

Get a job springs to mind. There are plenty out there, just most people want the cushy "on the dole" life. Well hard luck, its not meant to be cushy, its only meant to be a stop gap to help out between jobs, not a lifestyle.